RE: SUO: RE: CYC event vs. SUMO Process -- really different?
Pierluigi,
Exactly ["I generally end up wondering if talk of events as _particulars_
really is all that well understood."], I think there are various ways of
interpreting the event example. As you point out, regarding it as a type
rather than a particular is one.
Under this interpretation, classifying them as the same type as actual
located events, but without a spatial location would be a kind of category
mistake - rather than an improvement or a compromise.
BTW: You wrote "Perhaps you are reading "events have a location in time" as
"events have their respective locations in time necessarily." "
I was not entering into this discussion.
Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Pierluigi Miraglia
Sent: 16 June 2003 23:32
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: Re: SUO: RE: CYC event vs. SUMO Process -- really different?
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 06:45:21PM +0100, Chris Partridge wrote:
>
> Pat,
>
> You say: "it seems to be agreed that Events have a location in Time".
>
> I am not sure this is the case - as my earlier email hinted at.
>
> Consider the hypothetical Mary's birthday party. Assuming that it does not
> have to be on the actual birth-day, then it could be on any number of
days -
> if she is lucky it could extend over a number of days. This is not a
matter
> of ignorance or indecision - when considering the hypothetical party we
are
> considering the possibilities for it. The time has not crystalised. And if
> it does not crystallise - i.e. there is no party - we need to explain what
> kind of event we are talking about.
This is an interesting example. When I think about cases like this, I
generally end up wondering if talk of events as _particulars_ really is
all that well understood.
For what you are describing is something that could better interpreted as
an event type or (perhaps a la Jaegwon Kim?) property, which stands to
actual occurrences much the way a type/universal stands to actual
instances.
> This is not a trivial point - but one that makes its appearance (in
various
> guises) in commercial systems. Consider a financial option. This contracts
> for the exercise of an option during a specified period - so there is a
> limit on the period, but not a specific time. And this is inherent in the
> intention behind the contract.
>
> Does the option contract refer to an event or not? If not, a lot of things
> now need a home - if so, then we have to wave goodbye to "Events have a
> location in Time".
>
> There is a similar vagueness it seems to me in the boundaries of most
actual
> events - but that is a different point.
>
> It seems to me that one could sustain the thesis that "Events have a
> location in Time" if one stipulated it as a rule - and was prepared to
make
> the necessary adjustments elsewhere in the scheme. And this may be a good
> experiment to try.
Perhaps you are reading "events have a location in time" as "events have
their respective locations in time necessarily." That is not the same. It
seems to me that events (or anyway Davidsonian events = event particulars
= occurrences) necessarily have some location in time, but there may be
no particular such location which they have necessarily.
Best,
> But from a more general SUO perspective, I think it will help if the
> motivation and consequences of decisions like these are exposed and
> discussed. Or, to put it the other way around, one would be foolish to
rely
> on the SUO if these are not critically reviewed.
>
> I agree with your general point, that we need to try and find some process
> for moving forward. But, as Pat Hayes and others said at the begining of
> this enterpise, it is not easy. I think this example illustrates the
point.
>
> I also was under the impression that John Sowa's proposal was to allow the
> various different decisions to live together under one roof so that one
> could compare the consequences - if not develop some idea of the
motivation.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Patrick Cassidy
> Sent: 16 June 2003 17:18
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: RE: CYC event vs. SUMO Process -- really different?
>
>
>
>
> I would like try to resolve the specific question of
> whether in our standard ontology a 3D Event will
> necessarily have a location in Space (it seems to be
> agreed that Events have a location in Time).
> In John's note he suggests inclusion of both 3D
> and 4D events in the ontology. I agree. But I am
> unclear as to John's position on the definition
> of the 3D Event.
>
> John F. Sowa wrote:
> >
> > There is no need to vote, when there is a much
> > simpler way to accommodate the options.
> >
> > > What I suggest is that the group forces a vote on
> > > important definitions, such as that of "Event."
> >
> . . .
> >
> > To take the example of "event", there is no need to
> > force a decision. The ontology can simply include
> > three types: Event4D, Event3D, and a generic Event,
> > which includes Event4D and Event3D as subtypes.
> >
> OK. These are important issues that we should
> proceed to soon. I am only hoping that we can
> resolve what should be a simple question before
> proceeding to those other issues.
> As to the 3D Event, we have an option: is the
> spatial location relation marked as "necessary" or not?
> If necessary, then every instance of Event in a
> knowledge structure will be marked as having *some*
> location. That location can be unknown, or default,
> or may be specified within the knowledge base.
>
> Can we have both "necessary" and "optional" locations
> in one logically consistent ontology? In this case,
> I think so, by creating a parent class of 3D Event which
> has only a time location ("TemporalEvent"), and a subclass
> that has both time and spatial necessary locations
> ("SpatioTemporalEvent"). But the split 3D Event structure
> appears to me to make the translation to 4D more
> problematic and I think it should be adopted only if there
> is more than one person who thinks it desirable. Also,
> it seems to me to be inconsistent with my understanding
> of reality and the usual meanings of Events to imagine
> that they are not located in space. Even with
> spatial location marked as necessary in the SUO,
> individual users can still change that to optional
> for their own use if such a representation appears to
> them to be better, without imposing an unnecessarily
> complicated structure on all users.
>
> What I would like to know is how many participants in this
> discussion think that the SUO we adopt should have 3D Events
> which do not necessarily have some location in Space? Are
> there enough to warrant making the SUO more complicated by
> addition of an extra "TemporalEvent" class above the more
> common "SpatioTemporalEvent"?
>
> Pat
>
>
> =============================================
> Patrick Cassidy
>
> MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
> 735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
> Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
>
> internet: cassidy@micra.com
> =============================================
>
>
>
--
- - - - * * * * * - - - - * * * * * - - - - * * * * * - - - -
Pierluigi Miraglia Cycorp, Inc.
Ontologist 3721 Executive Center Dr.
(512) 514-2988 Austin, TX 78731